Loading...
2005-9397 G ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP &STFCHNICAL.CIVIL STIRUCTOHAL&AACHIEECEORAI CONSIEANTS FO RESIDENTIAL&CO MME R Ilk L CONSEROC EION 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302 • Fax: (760) 480-7477•www,designgrou ca.com p LIMITED GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION WEBER RESIDENCE, LOCATED AT 3454 BUMANN ROAD COMMUNITY OF OLIVENHAIN IN THE CITY OF ENCINITAS, CALIFORNIA EDG Project No. 053569.1 April 19, 2005 PREPARED FOR. Steve Weber 3454 Bumann Road Olivenhain, CA 92024 i 1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GE 0 FOR PFS4INICAL.CIVIL STAID'"'L$ARCHC TCN RAl.CONSUL7AN I5 FOR AESIDENIIAL&COMMERCIAL CONSiCRU"'F CN ' 2121 Montiel Road, San Marcos, California 92069 • (760) 839-7302• Fax: (760) 480-7477•www.designgroupca.com IP g groupca.com Date: April 19, 2005 To: Steve Weber 3454 Bumann Road Olivenhain, CA 92024 Re: Proposed New Additions to Weber Residence Located at 34 California 54 Bumann Road, Subject: Geotechnical Investigation and Report — In accordance with your request and our Work Authorization and 4,we have performed a limited subsurface investigation of the subject ct Agreement sitd the Pro tfor March o posed residential development. posed The findings of the investigation, earthwork recommendations and foundation are presented in this report. In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, described herein, is f design parameters from a geotechnical standpoint, provided the recommendations of this report and gene y acce ed construction practices are followed. If you ha v any questio regarding the following report please do not hesitate to contact our office. Si erely, NGl ERING DESIGN GROUP Steven is, GE#2590;CEG#2263 �- QROFESS�o _- Erin E. Rist, R E#65122 O CO N cr G,�� D OH� y ROFESS/'p -- 2590 '—' t,± S Ur-4J Nj,� ��;,"� �O Q \H /y9c' w .� t t 7 j EXPP zol CO 65122 — 9��TFCHN\GP 2- ��1?. G 0L.0(-,1G U r F�F OQ�� \ v "' rn CALIF '•' .r*?rF"? �I �' C)10' CIVIV- ��Of CAL\E0� TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ._ SCOPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION FIELD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 — INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . SUBSOIL CONDITIONS . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 _ GROUND WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIQUEFACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . 2 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . , • " GENERAL 4 — EARTHWORK 4 FOUNDATIONS . . . ' . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE 6 RETAINING WALLS " " 6 SURFACE DRAINAGE 9 CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATIONAND TESTING 10 MISCELLANEOUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . . . . 11 12 FIG— URES Site Vicinity Map Site Location Map " " " " " " Figure No. 1 Approximate Location of Test Pits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' Figure No. 2 PPENDICES Test Pit Nos. 1-3 A References . . , General Earthwork and Grading Appendix A Testing Procedures g Specifications . . . , . • , • ' ' ' ' " " • ' • • • • • • • • • • • • . . . . . . " ' • • • • Appendix Retaining Wall Drainage Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • Appendix C Appendix D Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, caiifomia Page No. 3 Job No.053569-1 - ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS SCOPE This report gives the results of our limited geotechnica1 investigation for th _ located at 3454 Bumann Road, Community of Olivenhain in the City of a property Encinitas, California. (See Figure No. 1, "Site Vicinity Map", and Figure No. 2, "Site Location The scope of our work, conducted to date, has included a visual reconnaissance Map f the Property and surrounding areas, a limited subsurface investigation of the Property in area of proposed improvements, field analysis, soil testing and preparation of this re the presenting our conclusions and recommendations. port SITE ANp PROJECT DESCR/PT/ON The subject property is located at 3454 Bumann Road, Communit of Encinitas, California. The site consists of a graded building of developed with h the City family residence. The general topography of the site area consists of moderately g pad developed with a single hillside terrain. The topography of the site itself consists of a graded pad a descending sloping slope at the front(south)yard areas and graded cut slopes along the north portions of e building pad, p ons of the At the time of this report the site was developed with a single family residen upon our conversations with the project owner we understand that theCe p posed improvements will include the following: -- 1• New graded pad area in the front yard. 2• Possible future attached and detached additions to the existing residence east portion of the pad. a along the FIELD INVEST/GAT/ON Our field investigation of the property, consisted of a site reconnaissance, _ measurements, observation of existing conditions on-site and on adjacent sites a site field limited subsurface investigation of soil conditions. Our subsurface investigation � and a _ of visual observation of 3 test pits in the general areas of proposed construction, Of soil types encountered, and sampling of soils for laboratory g on consisted tio logging test pits are given in Figure No. 3, "Approximate Location of Test PitsThe locations of our SUBSOIL CONDITIONS _ Materials consisting of topsoil and fill soil underlain by formational metavolcani crock were Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No. 1 Job No.053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS encountered during our subsurface investigation of the site. Soil types are described as follows: Topsoil/Fill Topsoil/fill soils consist of dark brown to tan, moist, medium dense to stiff, sandy clays to clayey sands. Fill materials found in the upper 1- 3 foot of the area of improvement are not suitable for the support of structures or settlement sensitive improvements in their present _ state. Topsoil and fill soil onsite generally classify as SC-CL according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation generally possess potentials for expansion in the medium range. Metavolcanic Rock Formational metavolcanic rock was found to underlie fill onsite. Metavolcanic rock materials consisted of rust brown to tan to grey,dense metavolcanic rock and sandstone. Metavolcanic rock materials are considered suitable for the support of overlying fill soils, structures i and structural improvements,provided the recommendations of th s report are followed. Metavolcanic rock classify as SM according to the Unified Classification System, and based on visual observation and our _ experience possess potentials for expansion in the low-medium range. For detailed logs of soil types encountered in footing excavations, as well as a de of observed locations, please see Figure No. 3, "Approximate Location of Test Pits". n _ s . GROUND WATER Ground water was not encountered during our subsurface investigation Groundwater is not anticipated to pose a significant limitation to the ro ose site. _ development. proposed ed site _ L/QUEFACT/ON It is our opinion that the site could be subjected to moderate to severe ground s haking in _ the event of a major earthquake along any of the faults in the Southern California However, the seismic risk at this site is not significant) region. developed area. Y greater than that of the surrounding Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No.2 Job No. 053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Liquefaction of cohesionless soils can be caused by strong vibratory motio n due to earthquakes. Research and historical data indicate that loose, granular soils underlain a near-surface ground water table are most susceptible to liquefaction, while the stability Of most silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by vibratory motion. Because y dense nature of the soil materials underlying the site and the lack of near of the water,the potential for liquefaction orseismically-induced dynamic settlement at the site is considered low. The effects of seismic shaking can be reduced by adhering he most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code and current design parameters of the Structural Engineers Association of California. e Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No. 3 Job No. 053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GE- NEERAL� _ In general, it is our opinion that the proposed construction, as described herein from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations of this � s feasible r generally accepted construction practices are followed. sport and Unsuitable soil profiles found to mantle the upper not suitable for the support of settlement sensit of improvements. At Atithe location are detached additions a removal and recompaction of unsuitable fill material shah e of conducted per the recommendations of the "Earthwork" section below. Where II be residence a removal and recompaction all new foundations shall be deepened through fill profiles g ence for competent formational metavolcanic rock and a structural slab shall be designed by to additions are attached to the existing residence or too close to the existing _ project structural engineer. y he Where the new pool is proposed the pool should be founded on uniform sub ra _ upon our investigation, we anticipate the proposed pool will be founded entirely l on scud formational soil. Where a cut-fill transition may occur along the pool bottom it shouut brought to the attention of Engineering Design Group and detailing shall be on ld be case basis. a case by The following recommendations should be considered as minimum design-- and shall be incorporated within the project plans and utilized during construction, as s, t lon applicable. EARTHWORK Any grading at the lower levels of the lot shall be conducted per the this section. Recompaction in the area of proposed new structural improvements shall s shall of ® performed utilizing the following standards and recommendations. be 1. Site Preparation Prior to any preparation of subgrade soils, areas of proposed improvement should be cleared of old structures and surface/su surtace -. organic debris (including topsoil). Removed debris should be properly disposed of off-site prior to the commencement of any fill operations. _ Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, olivenahain, California Page No. 4 Job No.053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS _ Holes resulting from the removal of debris, existing structures, or other improvements which extend below the rippable depth noted above, should be filled and compacted using on-site material. _ 2. Removals In general grading will be limited to the excavation of any topsoil or organic profiles to competent subgrade, scarification of subgrade to a depth of 12 inches, and the re-compaction of fill materials to 90 percent minimum relative compaction. Excavated fill materials are suitable for reuse as fill, provided it is screened of debris and oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter(oversized material is not anticipated to be _ of significant concern). Removals and undercuts should extend a minimum of 5 feet or to a _ distance at least equal to depth of fill removals, whichever is greater, beyond the footprint of the proposed structures and settlement sensitive improvements. Where this condition cannot be met it should be reviewed by the Engineering Design Group on a case by case basis. Removal depths should be visually verified by a representative of our firm prior to the placement of fill. 3. Fills Areas to receive structural improvements should be scarified to a minimum depth of 12 inches, brought to near optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90 percent relative compaction (based on -- ASTM D1557-91). Compacted fills should be cleaned of loose debris, oversize material in excess of 6 inches in diameter, brought to near Optimum moisture content, and re-compacted to at least 90% relative compaction (based on ASTM D1557-91). Surficial, loose or soft soils exposed or encountered during grading loose fill materials)should be removed o competent formational undocumented to or and properly compacted prior to additional fill placement. material Fills should generally be placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness. If the import of soil is planned, soils should have very potential for expansion (E.1. < 50) and free of debris and organic matter. Prior to importing, soils should be visually observed, sampled and tested at the borrow pit area to evaluate soil suitability as fill. Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No.5 Job No.053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS FOUNDA TIONS We anticipate that the proposed foundation system for proposed structures will utilize perimeter footings and a slab on grade. The following design parameters may be utilized for new footings extended to competent formational metavolcanlc rock or recompacted fill. _ Footings bearing in competent formational materials may be designed utilizin maximum allowable soils pressure of 2,000 psf. g 2• Seismic Design Parameters: Seismic Zone Factor 4 Soil Profile Type (Table 15-J) Sd Near Source Distance 14:8 km (Distance to Closest Rose Canyon Active Fault) Seismic Source Type B Table 10-i Bearing values may be increased by 33% when considering wind, seismic, or other short duration loadings. 3• The following parameters should be used as a minimum,for designing footin width _ and depth below lowest adjacent grade: g No. of Floors Minimum Footing Width *Minimum Footing Depth Supported Below Lowest Adjacent 1 Gracie 15 inches, 2 18 inches — 15 inches , 3 18 inches 1$ inches * Footings may be deeper in the field to extend to competent for metavolcanic profiles. mational 4• All footings should be reinforced with a minimum of two#4 bars at the to p and two -- #4 bars at the bottom (3 inches above the ground). For footings over 30 inches in depth, additional reinforcement, and possibly a stemwall system will be necessary. This detail should be reviewed on ,a case by case basis by our office prior to -- construction. Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No. 6 Job No. 053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS 5• All isolated spread footings should be designed utilizing the above given bearing values and footing depths, and be reinforced with a minimum of #4 bars at 12 inches o.c. in each direction (3 inches above the ground). Isolated spread footin s should have a minimum width of 24 inches. g 6• For footings adjacent to slopes, a minimum 15 feet horizontal setback in formational ._ material or properly compacted fill should be maintained. A setback measurement should be taken at the horizontal distance from the bottom of the footing to slope daylight. Where this condition can not be met it should be brought to the attention of the Engineering Design Group for review. 7• All excavations should be performed in general accordance with the contents of s report, applicable codes, OSHA requirements and applicable city and/or county y 8• All foundation subgrade soils and footings shall be pre-moistened a minimum o inches in depth prior to the pouring of concrete. f 18 CONCRETE SLABS ON GRADE We anticipate new slabs for the proposed additions will consist of both the areas where no removal and recompaction was performed. Conc ete slabs onlgra in should use the following as the minimum design parameters: grade 1 Concrete slabs on grade of the building should have a minimum thickness inches (5 inches at garage and driveway locations, not anticipated)and should be reinforced with #4 bars at 18 inches o.c. placed at the midpoint of the slab. �- 0 Slump: Between 3 and 4 inches maximum • Aggregate Size: 3/4 - 1 inch • Air Content: 5 to 8 percent • Moisture retarding additive in concrete at moisture sensitive areas. • Non-Moisture Sensitive Areas: Compressive Strength = 2500 Psi minimum. • Moisture Sensitive Areas: Water to cement Ratio - 0.5 We Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No. 7 Job No.053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS maximum Compressive Strength = 4,000 psi minimum (No special inspection required for water to cement ratio purposes, unless otherwise specified by the structural engineer) _ 2. In moisture sensitive areas (i.e. interior living space where slab vapor emission a concern),the slab concrete should have a minimum compressive strength of 4000 Psi(non-special inspected)and a minimum water to cement ratio of 0.5, maximum. This recommendation is intended to achieve a low permeability concrete. 3. All required fills used to support slabs, should be placed in accordance wi grading section of this report and the attached A th the Appendix B percent Modified Proctor Density, ASTM D-1557 , and compacted to 90 4. For all interior slabs, a uniform layer of 4 inches of washed, clean sand Equivalent>50, decomposed granite is generally not acceptable)is recommended — under the slab in order to more uniform) support the soils beneath the slab, and act as a capllarytb break. Ineadd addition, a visads to layer (10 mil) should be placed mid-height in the sand bed to acts as a q a or _ retarder. The visqueen layer should extend down the interior edge of the footing excavation a minimum of 12 inches. g 5• Adequate control joints should be installed to control the unavoidable cracking concrete that takes place when undergoing its natural shrinkage during curing. The control joints should be well located to direct unavoidable slab cracking to areas that are desirable by the designer. 6• All subgrade soils to receive concrete flatwork are to be pre-soaked to over optimum moisture content to a depth of 18 inches. 2 percent 7. Brittle floor finishes placed directly on slab on grade floors may crack if concrete is not adequately cured prior to installing the finish or if there is minor slab movement. To minimize potential damage to movement sensitive flooring, we recommend the use of slip sheeting techniques(linoleum type)which allows for foundation and slab movement without transmitting this movement to the floor finishes. 8. Exterior concrete flatwork and driveway slabs, due to the nature of concrete hydration and minor subgrade soil movement, are subject to normal minor con cracking. To minimize expected concrete e cracking, the following may be implemented: y • Concrete slump should not exceed 4 inches. _ Concrete should be poured during "cool" 40 - ( 65 degrees) weather if Weber Residence Page No.8 3454 Bumann Road, olivenahain, California Job No. 053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS _ Possible. If concrete is poured in hotter weather, a set retarding additive • should be included in the mix, and the slump kept to a minimum. Concrete subgrade should be pre-soaked prior to the pouring of concrete. The level of pre-soaking should be a minimum of 2%over optimum moisture to a depth of 18 inches. • Concrete may be poured with a 10 inch deep thickened edge. Flatwork adjacent to top of a slope should be constructed with a outside footing to attain a minimum of 7 feet distance to daylight. • Concrete should be constructed with tooled joints or sawcuts (1 inch deep) creating concrete sections no larger than 225 square feet. For sidewalks, the maximum run between joints should not exceed 5 feet. For rectangular shapes of concrete, the ratio of length to width should generally not exceed 0.6 (i.e., 5 ft. long by 3 ft. wide). Joints should be cut at expected points of — concrete shrinkage (such as male corners), with diagonal reinforcement placed in accordance with industry standards. _ Drainage adjacent to concrete flatwork should direct water away from the improvement. Concrete subgrade should be sloped and directed to the • collective drainage system, such that water is not trapped The recommendations set forth herein are intended to b educeecomet c nuisance cracking. The project concrete contractor is ultimately responsible for concrete quality and performance, and should pursue a cost-benefit analysis of these recommendations, and other options available in the industry, prior to the pouring of concrete. RETAINING WALLS Retaining walls up to 8 feet may be designed and constructed in accordance with following recommendations and minimum design parameters: the 1• Retaining wall footings should be designed in accordance with the allowable bea criteria given in the "Foundations" section of this report, and should ring minimum footing depths outlined in "Foundation" section of this report. maintain 2• Unrestrained cantilever retaining walls should be designed using an active equivalent fluid pressure of 35 pcf. This assumes that granular, free draining material with low potential for expansion (E.I. <50) will be used for backfill d — that the backfill surface will be level. Based upon our field investigation onsite soil shall not be utilized as retaining wall backfill. 3• For sloping backfill, the following parameters may be utilized: _ Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No.9 Job No.053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS Bacll Sloping Condition 2:1 Slope 1.5:1 Slope Active Fluid Pressure 50 pcf _ Any other surcharge loadings shall be analyzed in addition 5to pcf the above values. 4. If the tops of retaining walls are restrained from movement,they should be designed -- for an at rest soil pressure of 65 psf. 5. Passive soil resistance may be calculated using an equivalent fluid pressure of 250 -- pcf. This value assumes that the soil being utilized to resist passive pressures, extends horizontally 2.5 times the height of the passive pressure wedge of the soil. Where the horizontal distance of the available passive pressure wedge is less than 2.5 times the height of the soil, the passive pressure value must be reduced by the percent reduction in available horizontal length. _ 6. A coefficient of friction of 0.30 between the soil and concrete footings may be _ utilized to resist lateral loads in addition to the passive earth pressures above. 7. Retaining walls should be braced and monitored during compaction. If this cannot be accomplished, the compactive effort should be included as a surcharge load when designing the wall. 8. All walls shall be provided with adequate back drainage to relieve hydrostatic _ pressure, and be designed in accordance with the minimum sta in the "Retaining Wall Drainage Detail", Appendix D. ndards contained -- 9• Retaining wall backfill should be placed and compacted in accordance with the "Earthwork" section of this report. Backfill shall consist of soil with a very low expansion potential, granular, free draining material. SURFACE DR,q/NAGS Adequate drainage precautions at this site are imperative and will play a critical role on the _ future performance of the dwelling and improvements. Under no circumstances should water be allowed to pond against or adjacent to foundation walls, or tops of slopes. ground surface surrounding p opes. The nature, and slope to drain away from the e n all directions, with relatively impervious in of 2% for a horizontal distance of 7 feet (where possible). Area drains or surface swales Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No. 10 Job No.053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECNNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS should then be provided to accommodate runoff and avoid any ponding of water. Roof gutters and downspouts shall be installed on the new and existing structures and tightlined to the area drain system. All drains should be kept clean and unclogged, including utters and downspouts. Area drains should be kept free of debris to allow for proper drainage. During periods of heavy rain,the performance of all drainage systems should be inspected. Problems such as gullying or ponding should be corrected as soon as possible. An _ leakage from sources such as water lines should also be repaired as soon as possible. In addition, irrigation of planter areas, lawns, or other vegetation, located adjacent to the foundation or exterior flat work improvements, should be strictly controlled or avoided. CONSTRUCT/ON OBSERVAT/ON AND TEST/NG The recommendations provided in this report are based on subsurface conditions disclosed by our investigation of the project area. Interpolated subsurface conditions should be verified in the field during construction. The following items shall be conducted prior/during construction by representative of Engineering Design Group in orderto verify compliance with the geotechnical and civil engineering recommendations provided herein as applicable. 1. Review of final approved structural plans prior to the start of work for geotechnical recommendations. compliance with 2. Attendance of a pre-grade/construction meeting prior to the strt of 3. Testing of any fill placed, including retaining wall ba kf II and utility t noches. 4. Observation of footing excavations prior to steel placement. 5. Field observation of any "field change" condition involving soils. 6. Walk through of final drainage detailing prior to final approval. The project soils engineer may at their discretion deepen footings or locally recommend _ additional steel reinforcement to upgrade any condition as deemed necessary during site observations. g Engineering Design Group assumes no liability for structures constructed utilizin t report not meeting the above Observation & Testing protocol. 9 his Before commencement of grading the Engineering Design Group will require a separate contract for quality control observation and testing. Engineering Design Group requires minimum of 48 hours notice to mobilize onsite for field observation and testing. Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No. 11 Job No. 053569-1 ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS _ MISCELLANEOUS It must be noted that no structure or slab should be expected to remain totally free of cracks and minor signs of cosmetic distress. The flexible nature of wood and steel structures allows them to respond to movements resulting from minor unavoidable settlement of fill or natural soils, the swelling of clay soils, or the motions induced from seismic activity. All of the above can induce movement that frequently results in cosmetic cracking of brittle wall surfaces, such as stucco or interior plaster or interior brittle slab finishes. Data for this report was derived from surface observations at the site, knowledge of local conditions, and a visual observation of the soils exposed in the exploratory test pits. The recommendations in this report are based on our experience in conjunction with the limited soils exposed at this site and neighboring sites. We believe that this information gives an acceptable degree of reliability for anticipating the behavior of the proposed structure; however, our recommendations are professional opinions and cannot control nature, nor can they assure the soils profiles beneath or adjacent to those observed. Therefore, no warranties of the accuracy of these recommendations, beyond the limits of the obtained data, is herein expressed or implied. This report is based on the investigation at the described site and on the specific anticipated construction as stated herein. If either of -- these conditions is changed, the results would also most likely change. Man-made or natural changes in the conditions of a property can occur over a period of time. In addition, changes in requirements due to state of the art knowledge and/or legislation,are rapidly occurring. As a result, the findings of this report may become invalid due to these changes. Therefore, this report for the specific site, is subject to review and not considered valid after a period of one year, or if conditions as stated above are altered. It is the responsibility of the owner or his representative to ensure that the information in this report be incorporated into the plans and/or specifications and construction of the _ project. It is advisable that a contractor familiar with construction details typically used to deal with the local subsoil and seismic conditions, be retained to build the structure. If you have any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further service, leas _ do not hesitate to contact us. We hope the report provides you with necessary information to continue with the development of the project. n _ Weber Residence 3454 Bumann Road, Olivenahain, California Page No. 12 Job No. 053569-1 _ ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL CONSULTANTS C� SITE DTI 1 E� 1 1�E IA DE IO u1� u [ ° ESC ENCINI ENCI r \ �. �. sw eeawem CARDIFF—BY—HE—SE '�`� a�G�o RANCHO _� PANCHy BERNARDOAR MHO s- n � �P �� ct s ti ELI,.L49.tiv mx P va i A t 0 aw3u �z o u[[tEraxc ' z yy a , TA fEo J. mcc�rm SO NA BEACH m + E RSANt + �, RANCHO E EN GARDENS o H EY HEIG o DEL MAR ¢o' o a CA OWAY- �� VALL 1 GE! SE TORRfY PINES 4ey [as STATE RESERVE �Q p �O1' ' Ix 120 Emaww �Np L SA 0 ME msry -- SORRENTO o �+ ENt + Rp IRAMAR +o @ �^Q 8 1 MIMM,IR o rj 1227 �� A � 4 vrir L s Arq Tm Mt LA JOI A LEDAO KEARNY '14 r PINES ra<+ � MESA 111 _ TI�R�ANT� SITE VICINITY MAP PROJECT NAME WEBER RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 3454 BUMANN ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE 053569 GEOTECHNICAL,2 21 STRUCTURAL r ARCHITECTURAL 0 CONSULTANTS Phone:(760)839-7302 fix:(760)180-7477 1 E:IFORMSSt FRM12000WASTER-SITE VICINITY-FIG 1.wpd cl _ 'p DOU9LE LC RANCH RO <' ORTUNA COUNTRY RQS€ s 00 I SITE 5jy wI GAND FORTUN I1 'f �Q 1 RIfi� pK 80 f LITTLE s� ; �� q C4 44E TR4, a4KS RK < t C4<4e ., IA FRAGP °p DE CABAIL(l �� N oq D L DUQUE' Z�CA Ol/F � Q G W AT c OF p VIA 3100 \E OR(F ¢ Sp�o� 9S�GFFI9 RANJAL D 4 OAS 8 �I -0' ITHA 16 a r babe-'q n SITE LOCATION MAP PROJECT NAME WEBER RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 3454 BUMANN ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE —_ GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 053569 2121 Abn9el Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 Phone:(760)839.7302 Floc(760)480.7477 2 E:IFORMSII FRM120001MASTER-SITE LOCATION-FIG 2.wpd �- �-Tf 17 PJ•I. Ca!ti� Nttl , / 111��{ 111111 , F , ] ( L rj CtiTiRy !fj 11I � � OL - CUM. "� I ` - ( t ( f _ APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF TEST PITS PROJECT NAME - WEBER RESIDENCE PROJECT ADDRESS 3454 BUMANN ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CALIFORNIA JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP GEOTECHNICAL,�12wL �8I�T dSan MarT',q gy089 CONSULTANTS FIGURE Phone:(760 39-7302 Fax(76p)480-7477 3 E:IFORMSII FRM120001MASTER-FIG.wpd HAND DUG LOGGED BY: SN TEST PIT SAMPLED BY: SN GEOLOGIC SAMPLE ATTITUDES No. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION O TOPSOIL / FILL ® 0 TO 1', DARK BROWN; MOIST; MED. DENSE TO MED. STIFF; SANDY CLAYS TO CLAYEY SANDS WITH ROOTS (CL—SC) FILL/WEATHERED MATERIAL ® 1' TO 2.25', BROWN; MOIST; MED. DENSE; CLAYEY SANDS WITH LARGER ANGULAR COBBLES (CL—SC) © METAV_ O�CANIC -- ® 2.25' TO 3.25', RUST BROWN TO TAN; MOIST; VERY DENSE; METAVOLCANIC ROCK (SM) GRAPHIC APROXIMATE SCALE: LOG 1" = 2.5' ------ SURFACE SLOPE: t 0' TREND: 0' III-III I I I-I I I III-I I I 2' B 4 TERMINATED ® 39' 5' ENGINEERING EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG -- DESIGN GROUP WEBER RESIDENCE 2121 MONTIEL ROAD SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 3454 BUMANN ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CA (760) 839-7302 JOB No. - FAX (760) 480-7477 DATE 053569 4-15-05 TEST PIT No. 1 HAND DUG LOGGED BY: SN TEST PIT SAMPLED BY: SN -- GEOLOGIC SAMPLE ATTITUDES No. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION O TOPSOIL / FILL ® 0 TO 0.5', DARK BROWN; MOIST; MED. DENSE TO MED. STIFF; SANDY CLAYS TO CLAYEY SANDS WITH SMALL ROOTS (CL—SC) © FILL/WEATHERED MATERIAL ® 0.5' TO 1', BROWN; MOIST; MED. DENSE; CLAYEY SANDS WITH LARGER ANGULAR COBBLES (CL—SC) © MEfAVOLCANIC ® 1' TO 1.5', RUST BROWN TO TAN; MOIST; VERY DENSE; METAVOLCANIC ROCK (SM) GRAPHIC APROXIMATE SCALE: LOG 1" = 1.25' ------ SURFACE SLOPE: t 0' TREND: 0' 0.51—� I I III—III A = III-III III-III III-I I I 1 B 2' TERMINATED @ 18' .5" ENGINEERING EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG DESIGN GROUP WEBER RESIDENCE 2121 MONTIEL ROAD SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 3454 BUMANN ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CA (760) 839-7302 JOB No. -- FAX (760) 480-7477 DATE 053569 4-15-05 TEST PIT No. 2 HAND DUG LOGGED BY: SN TEST PIT SAMPLED BY: SN -- GEOLOGIC SAMPLE ATTITUDES No. GEOTECHNICAL DESCRIPTION O TOPSOIL / FILL ® 0 TO 1.5', DARK BROWN; MOIST; MED. DENSE TO MED, STIFF; SANDY CLAYS TO CLAYEY SANDS WITH ROOTS (CL—SC) © FILL/WEATHERED MATERIAL ® 1.5' TO 2.5', BROWN; MOIST; MED. DENSE; CLAYEY SANDS WITH LARGER ANGULAR COBBLES (CL—SC) © MEfAVLCANIC -- ® 2.5' TO 3', RUST BROWN TO TAN; MOIST; VERY DENSE; MEfAVOLCANIC ROCK (SM) GRAPHIC APROXIMATE SCALE: LOG 1" = 2.5' ------ SURFACE SLOPE: f 0' TREND: 0' 11_111 111_111 A - _ _ 2' 3 C 4' TERMINATED ® 36" 5' ENGINEERING EXPLORATORY TRENCH LOG _ DESIGN GROUP 2121 MON WEBER RESIDENCE I4EL ROAD SAN MARCOS, CA 92069 3454 BUMANN ROAD, OLIVENHAIN, CA (760) 839-7302 JOB No. DATE -- FAX (760) 480-7477 053569 4-15-05 TEST PIT No. 3 APPENDIX -A- APPENDIX A REFERENCES 1. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Fault-Rupture Zones in California, Special Publication 42, Revised 1990. 2. Greensfelder, R.W., 1974, Maximum Credible Rock Acceleration from Earthquakes in California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Map Sheet 23. 3. Hart, Michael, June 17, 1994, Gelogic Investigation, 7505 Hillside Drive, La Jolla,CA, File N0: 153- 94. 4. Engineering Design Group, Un-published In-House Data, 5. Ploessel, M.R. and Slossan, J.E., 1974 Repeatable High Ground Acceleration from Earthquakes: California Geololgy, Vol. 27, No. 9, P.195-199. 6. State of California, Fault Map of California, Map No:1, Dated 1975. 7. State of California, Geologic Map of California, Map No:2, Dated 1977. _ APPENDIX -B- GENERAL EARTHWORK AND GRADING SPECIFICATIONS 1.0 General intent These specifications are presented as general procedures and recommendations for grading and earthwork to be utilized in conjunction with the approved grading plans. These general earthwork and grading specifications are a part of the recommendations contained in the geotechnical report and shall be superseded by the recommendations in the geotechnical report in the case of conflict. Evaluations performed by the consultant during the course of grading may result in new recommendations which could supersede these specifications or the recommendations of the geotechnical report. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to read and understand these specifications, as well as the geotechnical report and approved grading plans. 2.0 Earthwork Observation and Testing Prior to the commencement of grading, a qualified geotechnical consultant should be employed for the purpose of observing earthwork procedures and testing the fills for conformance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report and these specifications. It shall be the responsibility of the contractor to assist the consultant and keep him apprised of work schedules and changes, at least 24 hours in advance, so that he may schedule his personnel accordingly. No grading operations should be performed without the knowledge of the geotechnical consultant. The contractor shall not assume that the geotechnical consultant is aware of all grading operations. It shall be the sole responsibility of the contractor to provide adequate equipment and methods to accomplish the work in accordance with applicable grading codes and agency ordinances, recommendations in the geotechnical report, and the approved grading plans not withstanding the testing and observation of the geotechnical consultant. If, in the opinion of the consultant, conditions, such as unsuitable soil, poor moisture condition, inadequate compaction, adverse weather, etc., are resulting in a quality of work less than recommended in the geotechnical report and the specifications, the consultant will be empowered to reject the work and recommend that construction be stopped _ until the conditions are rectified. Maximum dry density tests used to evaluate the degree of compaction should be performed in general accordance with the latest version of the American Society for Testing and Materials test method ASTM D1557. -1- 3.0 Preparation of Areas to be Filled 3.1 Clearing and Grubbing: Sufficient brush, vegetation, roots deleterious material should be removed or properly disposed of inda all other method acceptable to the owner, design engineer, governing agencies and the geotechnical consultant. The geotechnical consultant should evaluate the extent of these removals depending on specific site conditions. In general, no more than 1 percent (by volume)of the fill material should consist of these materials and nesting of these materials should not be allowed. 3.2 Processing: The existing ground which has been evaluated by the geotechnical consultant to be satisfactory for support of fill, should be scarified to a minimum depth of 6 inches. Existing ground which is not satisfactory should be overexcavated as specified in the following section. Scarification should continue until the soils are broken down and free of large clay lumps or clods and until the working surface is reasonably uniform, flat, and free of uneven features which would inhibit uniform compaction. 3.3 Overexcavation: Soft, dry, organic-rich, spongy, highly fractured, or otherwise unsuitable ground, extending to such a depth that surface processing cannot adequately improve the condition, should be overexcavated down to competent ground, as evaluated by the geotechnical _ consultant. For purposes of determining overexcavated, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer tshould be utilized. 3.4 Moisture Conditioning: Overexcavated and processed soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a _ uniform moisture content near optimum. _ 3.5 Recompaction: Overexcavated and processed soils which have been properly mixed, screened of deleterious material, and moisture-conditioned should be recompacted to a minimum relative compaction of 90 percent or _ as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant. -2- 3.6 Benching: Where fills are to be placed on ground with slopes steeper than 5:1 (horizontal to vertical), the ground should be stepped or benched. The lowest bench should be a minimum of 15 feet wide, at least 2 feet into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Other benches should be excavated into competent material as evaluated by the geotechnical consultant. Ground sloping flatterthan 5:1 should be benched or otherwise overexcavated when recommended by the geotechnical consultant. 3.7 Evaluation of Fill Areas: All areas to receive fill, including processed areas, removal areas, and toe-of-fill benches, should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to fill placement. 4.0 Fill Material 4.1 General: Material to be placed as fill should be sufficiently free of organic matter and other deleterious substances, and should be evaluated by the geotechnical consultant prior to placement. Soils of poor expansion, or strength characteristics should be placed as recommended by the geotechnical consultant or mixed with other soils to achieve satisfactory fill material. 4.2 Oversize: Oversize material, defined as rock or other irreducible material with a maximum dimension greater than 6 inches, should not be buried or placed in fills, unless the location, materials, and disposal methods are specifically recommended by the geotechnical consultant. Oversize disposal operations should be such that nesting of oversize material does not occur, and such that the oversize material is completely surrounded by compacted or densified fill. Oversize material should not be placed within 10 feet vertically of finish grade, within 2 feet of future utilities or underground construction, or within 15 feet horizontally of slope faces, in accordance with the attached detail. -3- 4.3 Import: If importing of fill material is required for grading, the import material should meet the requirements of Section 4.1. Sufficient time should be given to allow the geotechnical consultant to observe (and test, if necessary) the proposed import materials. 5.0 Fill Placement and Compaction 5.1 Fill Lifts: Fill material should be placed in areas prepared and previously evaluated to receive fill, in near-horizontal layers approximately 6 inches in compacted thickness. Each layer should be spread evenly and thoroughly mixed to attain uniformity of material and moisture throughout. 5.2 Moisture Conditioning: Fill soils should be watered, dried-back, blended, and/or mixed, as necessary to attain a uniform moisture content near optimum. 5.3 Compaction of Fill: After each layer has been evenly spread, moisture- conditioned, and mixed, it should be uniformly compacted to not less than 90 percent of maximum dry density (unless otherwise specified). Compaction equipment should be adequately sized and be either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability, to efficiently _ achieve the specified degree and uniformity of compaction. _ 5.4 Fill Slopes: Compacting of slopes should be accomplished, in addition to normal compacting procedures, by backrolling of slopes with sheepsfoot rollers at increments of 3 to 4 feet in fill elevation gain, or by other methods producing satisfactory results. At the completion of grading, the relative compaction of the fill out to the slope face would be at least 90 percent. -4- 5.5 Compaction Testing: Field tests of the moisture content and degree of _ compaction of the fill soils should be performed at the consultant's discretion based on field conditions encountered. In general, the tests should be taken at approximate intervals of 2 feet in vertical rise and/or 1,000 cubic yards of compacted fill soils. In addition, on slope faces, as a guideline approximately one test should be taken for each 5,000 square feet of slope face and/or each 10 feet of vertical height of slope. 6.0 Subdrain Installation Subdrain systems, if recommended, should be installed in areas previously evaluated for suitability by the geotechnical consultant, to conform to the approximate alignment and details shown on the plans or herein. The subdrain location or materials should not be changed or modified unless recommended by the geotechnical consultant. The consultant, however, may recommend changes in subdrain line or grade depending on conditions encountered. All subdrains should be surveyed by a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer for line and grade after installation. Sufficient time shall be allowed for the survey, prior to commencement of filling over the subdrains. 7.0 Excavation Excavations and cut slopes should be evaluated by a representative of the geotechnical consultant (as necessary) during grading. geotechnical consultant, further excavation, overexcava ion, la and efillidngbof cut areas and/or remedial grading of cut slopes (i.e., stability fills or slope buttresses) may be recommended. 8.0 Quantity Determination For purposes of determining quantities of materials excavated during grading and/or determining the limits of overexcavation, a licensed land surveyor/civil engineer should be utilized. -5- MINIMUM RETAINING WALL WATERPROOFING & DRAINAGE DETAIL FINAL WATERPROOFING SPECIFICATIONS & DETAILS TO BE PROVIDED BY PROJECT ARCHITECT MASTIC TO BE APPLIED TO TOP OF WALL MASTIC TYPE WATER PROOFING (HLM 5000 OR EOUIV) INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES TOP OF RETAINING WALL SPECIFICATIONS & PROTECTED WITH BACKER BOARD (ABOVE MIRADRAIN) MASTIC NOT TO BE EXPOSED TO SUNLIGHT o SOIL BACKFILL, COMPACTED TO 90% RELATIVE COMPACTION _ 2__ X PER REFERENCE 11 NO MIRADRAIN (top) —1 + —I ' _ I — / PROPOSED SLOPE BACKCUT PER OSHA STANDARDS i- AREA DRAIN OR PER ALTERNATIVE SLOPING RETAINING WALL SYSTEM PLAN, OR PER APPROVED .. i_ SHORING PLAN MIRADRAIN MEMBRANE 4. INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES SPECIFICATIONS OVER MASTIC , FILTER FABRIC ENVELOPE WATERPROOFING - HLM 5000 ?MI .` (MIRAF 1 140N OR OR EQUIVALENT III- APPROVED EQUIVALENT) c GRAVEL 1 1/2" CLEAN =I III—III—I I " ? 1 I I=II I=I I I�I I I—III III " 'i�'I I 4'X4' T45 CONCRETE CANT O FOOTING/WALL CONNECTION c (UNDER WATER PROOFING)) 4. (MIN:) DIAMETER PERFORATED PVC PIPE ItI� (SCHEDULE 40 OR EQ.) <C WTH PERFORATIONS ORIENTED DOWN AS c <<�< �1 DEPICTED MIN. 2X -- OMPACTED FILL v t .l`x ` x x )R BEDROCK WALL FOOTING +'�'` ''`'�' '� '` ` ` GRADIENT TO SUITABLE OUTLET. END MIRADRAIN (bottom) COMPETENT BEDROCK OR FILL MATERIAL AS EVALUATED BY THE GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT SCALE: 1" = 1' -0" PROJECT NAME PROJECT ADDRESS JOB NUMBER ENGINEERING DESIGN GROUP FIGURE GEOTECHNICAL,CIVIL,STRUCTURAL&ARCHITECTURAL CONSULTANTS 2121 Montiel Road,San Marcos,CA 92069 Phone:(760)639-7302 Fax:(760)480.7477 \WaWfile on mainWORMSII FRM00001MASTER-FIG.wpd SIDE HILL STABILITY FILL DETAIL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE FINISHED SLOPE FACE PROJECT t TO t LINE / FINISHED CUT PAD FROM TOP OF SLOPE TO OUTSIDE EDGE OF KEY ___________ OVERBURDEN OR UNSUITABLE PAO OVEREXCAVATION DEPTH MATERIAL tiAl- AND RECOMPACTION MAY BE RECOMMENDED I3Y THE _ -`- STABILITY FILL / BUTTRESS DETAIL OUTLET PIPES 4' 0 NONPERFORATED PIPE._ 100' MAX. O.C. HORIZONTALLY, 30' MAX. O.C. VERTICALLY =___ - BACK CUT 1:1 OR FLATTER ?% MINA_==?- BENCH SEE SUBDRAIN TRENCF- __ DETAIL --------- LOWEST-- -- "-- SUBDRAIN SHOULD _.==__=_OMP'WCT5D CANYON SUBDRAIN DETAILS EXISTING GROUND SURFACE =-= _ KEY AND BENCHING DETAILS FILL SLOPE __ __ ----. PROJECT 1 TO 1 LINE r== z= FROM TOE OF SLOPE k%. =?_: TO COMPETENT MATERIAL EXISTING GROUND SURFACE REMOVE UNSUITABLE MATERIAL BENCH 2' M 15, MIN KEY LOWEST DEPTH BENCH (KEY) FILL-OVER-CUT SLOPE ____ -FILL- -' EXISTING =---- -- - ---- GROUND SURFACE BENCH �..._1 W-7IIN.-^+� REMOVE UNSUITABLE MIN LOWEST BENCH MATERIAL . DEPTH (KEY) CUT SLOPE (TO BE EXCAVATED PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) EX13TING GROUND �- -t 3URFACE� CSLOP£ CUT-OVER-FILL SLOPE / / �� (T E EXCAVATED / PRIOR TO FILL PLACEMENT) REMOVE - PROJECT 1 TO 1 -= UNSUITABLE -- =---xz"_"--= u MATERIAL LINE FROM TOE OF SLOPE TO p_Mp CT_ COMPETENT _ _ MATERIAL '-r_Fli-=` _ BENCH MIN.=_= j -- 2' MIN. EST I EN KEY DEPTH (KEY) NOTE: Back drain may be recommended by the geotechnical consultant based on actual field conditions encountered. Bench dimension recommendations may also be altered based on field conditions encountered. ROCK DISPOSAL DETAIL PINISM GRADE SLOPE FACE j, M11 _ _== _ _?'__'%= _ APPENDIX -C- LABORATORY TESTING PROCEDURES Direct Shear Test Direct shear tests are performed on remolded and/or relatively undisturbed - samples which are soaked for a minimum of 24 hours prior to testing. After transferring the sample to the shearbox, and reloading, pore pressures are allowed to dissipated for a period of approximately 1 hour prior to application of shearing force. The samples are sheared in a motor- - driven, strain controlled, direct-shear testing apparatus. After a travel of approximately 1/4 inch, the motor is stopped and the sample is allowed to "relax" for approximately 15 minutes. Where applicable, the "relaxed"and "peak"shear values are recorded. It is anticipated that, in a majority _ of samples tested, the 15 minutes relaxing of the sample is sufficient to allow dissipation of pore pressures set up due to application of the shearing force. The relaxed values are therefore judged to be good estimations of effective strength parameters. Expansion Index Tests: The expansion potential of representative samples is evaluated by the Expansion Index Test, U.B.C. Standard No. 29-2. Specimens are molded under a given compactive energy to approximately the optimum moisture content and approximately 50 percent saturation. The prepared 1-inch thick by 4-inch diameter specimens are loaded to an equivalent 144 psf surcharge and are inundated with tap water for 24 hours or until volumetric equilibrium is reached. Classification Tests: Typical materials were subjected to mechanical grain-size analysis by wet sieving from U.S. Standard brass screens (ASTM D422-65). Hydrometer analyses were performed where appreciable quantities of fines were encountered. The data was evaluated in determining the classification of the materials. The grain-size distribution curves are presented in the test data and the Unified Soil Classification is presented in both the test data and the boring logs. APPENDIX -D- RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE DETAIL SOIL BACKFILL. COMPACTED TO 90 PERCENT RELATIVE COMPACTION* RETAINING WALL------.,, = HYDROLOGY AND HYDAULICS REPORT PREPARED FOR: STEVE WEBER 3454 BUMANN RD ENCINITAS, CA 92024 DATE: 5-15-05 PREPARED BY: THE MAPSMITH 535 NORTH HWY. 101, SUITE G SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075 858-259-2510 �. 9 aFESSj� x LH. �' r No. 6 i lv t j 1 cfvI� - - �- 'CAL �A 7 �- -' Michael H. Smith, R 65090 I—INTRODUCTION: The project site is physically located at 3454 Bumann Rd., Encinitas, California. The APN is 264-101-61. The geographical location of the project for the determining the base rainfall amount is N33°03'45" & W 117°12'27'p�Se p u f ose Of this report is to calculate the amount of rainfall that can be expected to be generated on this property and provide recommendations to size storm drain interceptors and conveyance pipes to adequately intercept, contain and cone 100 to the appropriate discharge points. y Q II—DISCUSSION: Software by AES, and Flowmaster was utilized in performing the hydrology and hydraulic calculations contained herein. Soil type D is assumed for the site to be conservative. The site currently drains to the south in both sheet flow form and in the case of the existing pad discharges concentrated drainage onto the existing asphalt driveway. In the post construction condition, the existing drainage pattern is maintained. The ultimate discharge point is in the same location as exists in the pre-developed condition. (NODES 1, and 2) III — CONCLUSION: It is the professional opinion that the storm drain system as shown on the corresponding drainage plans, based upon calculations contained herein, will intercept, contain and convey the 100 year storm flows to the appropriate point of discharge. 3 IV- 100 YEAR HYDROLOGY CALCULATIONS 4 ********************** ********************************** RATIONAL METHOD HYDROLOGY COMPUTER PROGRAM PACKAGE Reference: SAN DIEGO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 2001, 1985, 1981 (c) Copyright 1982-2002Advan HYDROLOGY Advanced Engineering oftware ae Ver. 1.5A Release Date: 01/01/2002 License ID 1452 s) Analysis prepared by: The Mapsmith 535 N. Hwy. 101, Suite G Solana Beach, CA 92075 ************************** DESCRIPTION OF STUDY ************************** * 100 YEAR STORM HYDROLOGY ANALYSIS * SEE EXHIBIT "B" FOR ONSITE DRAINAGE PATTERNS * MS 04-051A * TYPE D SOIL USED THROUGHOUT TO BE CONSERVATIVE. *************************************************************************** 5-12-05 FILE NAME: 04051A.DAT --TIME/DATE OF STUDY: 13:37 05/24/2005 ------------------ -- _ - USER SPECIFIED HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC MODEL INFORMATION: ------------------ 1985 SAN DIEGO MANUAL CRITERIA- - USER SPECIFIED STORM EVENT(YEAR) = 100.00 6-HOUR DURATION PRECIPITATION (INCHES) = 2. 900 SPECIFIED MINIMUM PIPE SIZE(INCH) _ SPECIFIED PERCENT OF GRADIENTS(DECIMAL) •TO USE FOR FRICTION SLOPE SAN DIEGO HYDROLOGY MANUAL "C"-VALUES USED FOR RATIONAL METHOD - 0'95 NOTE: ONLY PEAK CONFLUENCE VALUES CONSIDERED *USER-DEFINED STREET-SECTIONS FOR COUPLED PIPEFLOW AND STREETFLOW MODEL* HALF- CROWN TO STREET-CROSSFALL: CURB GUTTER-GEOMETRIES: WIDTH CROSSFALL IN- / OUT-/PARK- HEIGHT WIDTH LIP MANNING NO. - (FT) -_- (FT) SIDE / SIDE/ WAY (FT) HIKE FACTOR _ (FT) (FT) (FT) (n) 1 30.0 20.0 0.018/0.018/0.020 -__== ===== -== ====_ 0.67 2.00 0.0312 0.167 0.0150^ GLOBAL STREET FLOW-DEPTH CONSTRAINTS: I. Relative Flow-Depth = 0.00 FEET as (Maximum Allowable Street Flow Depth) - (To 2. (Depth) * (Velocity) Constraint = 6.0 (FT*FT/S)p-of-Curb) *SIZE PIPE WITH A FLOW CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO THE UPSTREAM TRIBUTARY PIPE.* **************************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ------------------------------1_00-TO-NODE---- 1.10 IS CODE _ 21 RATIONAL METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<------------------------ USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .4500= S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 - NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION (APPENDIX X-A) WITH 10-MINUTES ADDED = INITIAL 11.76(MINUTES) SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 291.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 310 2911.. ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 00 NATURAL WATERSHED TIME OF CONCENTRATION = 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR 11.76 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ ) = 4. 400 0.97 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.49 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ----------POOP-- 2.00 TO NODE ********** 2.10 »» IS CODE = 21 >RATIONAL_METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYS < -------------------------- ---- USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 _ - IS«« S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 --_-`_- __- ---' INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 107.00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 318 3144.. ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 20 4. URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND TIME OFOFLOW(MINUTES) _ *CAUTION: SUBAREA SLOPE EXCEEDS COUNTY NOMOGRAPH 6 599 DEFINITION. EXTRAPOLATION OF NOMOGRAPH USED. 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.60 = 6.389 0.17 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE --------------- --- 2.10 TO NODE ********** 2. 00 IS CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM FOR CONFLUENCE««<- _ -- TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS = 2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN. ) = 6.60 1 ARE RAINFALL, INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 6.39 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.17 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ 0. 60 ****************************************************************** FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE FLOW -PROCESS- 2.30 TO NODE ********** ---- ---- IS CODE = 21 _ RATIONAL-METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««< - ---- USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 87 .4500 NATURAL WATERSHED NOMOGRAPH TIME OF CONCENTRATION WITH 10-MINUTES ADDED _ INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH 42 (MINUTES) (APPENDIX X-A) UPSTREAM ELEVATION = 71.00 DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 329.50 ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 318.20 NATURAL WATERSHED TIME OF CONCENTRATION = 100 YEAR RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR 10.42 SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) _ ) = 4.758 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0. 19 0. 09 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ 0.19 ************************************************************************ FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ---L_______E___---------___ 2.20 TO NODE 2.00 IS **** »»>COMPUTE PIPE-FLOW TRAVEL TIME THRU SUBAREA««< CODE »»>USING-COMPUTER-ESTIMATED PIPESIZE (NON-PRESSURE FLOW)««< --^ ELEVATION DATA: UPSTREAM(FEET FLOW LENGTH(FEET) _ ) 317.50 DOWNSTREAM(FEET) = 314.20 DEPTH OF FLOW IN 6.01INCHOp1pISING'S N = 0.010 PIPE-FLOW VELOCITY(FEET/SEC. 1.7 INCHES ESTIMATED PIPE DIAMETER(INCH) = 4 12 PIPE-FLOW(CFS) = 0.19 6.00 NUMBER OF PIPES = PIPE TRAVEL TIME(MIN. ) = 1 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 0.59 Tc(MIN. ) = 11.01 2.30 TO NODE 2.00 = *************************************************************2***00*FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ---LO -PROCESS-FROM-NODE------2.20 TO NODE 2.00 IS **** _____ ________ CODE = 1 »»>DESIGNATE INDEPENDENT STREAM-FOR CONFLUENCE««< - --»»>AND-COMPUTE VARIOUS CONFLUENCED STREAM VALUES««< - TOTAL NUMBER OF STREAMS =--2 CONFLUENCE VALUES USED FOR INDEPENDENT STREAM 2 ARE: TIME OF CONCENTRATION(MIN. ) = 11.01 RAINFALL INTENSITY(INCH/HR) = 4.59 TOTAL STREAM AREA(ACRES) = 0.09 PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) AT CONFLUENCE _ 0.19 ** CONFLUENCE DATA ** STREAM RUNOFF Tc NUMBER (CFS) INTENSITY AREA 1 0.60 (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) (ACRE 2 6. 60 6.389 ) 0. 19 11.01 0.17 4.592 0.09 RAINFALL INTENSITY AND TIME OF CONCENTRATION RATIO CONFLUENCE FORMULA USED FOR 2 STREAMS. ** PEAK FLOW RATE TABLE ** STREAM RUNOFF NUMBER Tc INTENSITY Tc (MIN. ) (INCH/HOUR) 1 0.74 2 6. 60 6.389 0. 62 11. 01 4.592 COMPUTED CONFLUENCE ESTIMATES ARE AS FOLLOWS: PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) _ TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0'74 Tc(MIN. ) = 6.60 LONGEST FLOWPATH FROM NODE 26 2.30 TO NODE 2.00 = 217. 00 FEET. FLOW PROCESS FROM NODE ---L-_____-E_ 3.10 TO NODE **** -------CROP __ _ ---- IS CODE = 21 --»»>RATIONAL-METHOD INITIAL SUBAREA ANALYSIS««<------------------------USER-SPECIFIED RUNOFF COEFFICIENT = .5500 - - - S.C.S. CURVE NUMBER (AMC II) = 88 - - INITIAL SUBAREA FLOW-LENGTH = 109. 00 UPSTREAM ELEVATION = DOWNSTREAM ELEVATION = 289 . ELEVATION DIFFERENCE = 287.80 URBAN SUBAREA OVERLAND 1.20 100 YEAR RAINFALL TIME OF FLOW(MINUTES) _ SUBAREA RUNOFF(CFS) INTENSITY(INCH/HOUR) = 4.883 10'010 -=TOTAL AREA(ACRES) = 0.11 0.04 TOTAL RUNOFF(CFS) _ END OF STUDY SUMMARY; 0.11 TOTAL AREA(ACRES) -_PEAK FLOW RATE(CFS) = 0'04 TC(MIN.) _ -- - 0.11 10.01 END OF RATIONAL METHOD ANALYSIS APPENDIX 9 4Wd 1 i�. __CAKLtik.4U E ) r ----� co II u _ i J r ' ; r , 1 1 d05 U� fff .f 1 i ti /I Pain' 1 c i o / 111 _ O t - W > tank 285 Water 1 �: n Di 9uito . UNAizyB Rea .► a� ) ♦ '� '� , oar 4! F< 2z/ —} ervoir P�,3► ) �� a • . % uON EV/O O F T - r Lf� 1 - 1 r v ♦- �� h r �pG0 i ).. Rip _s �. y 8 �,G •' CoopSF J v v j I{.SM-245.� •� 44*� • J _ /t �,'l���r��r �� , r C a \ N % 7 „ ��; PO � 9E,ct�Ero ��, � r�� �� ':�� arlC�jO Sant ' a ��' rr _ _ '� Win, �` �, "� • / . " CD Zz ci CD cm CIV Ir too CD uj %J-A~7 l n'�f f�.� i v� 4 CAS •c �r` r• � O m z CN FQ L z ' '�) ti i zft •...: l yc CD o Q O Z en cc oG uj 0 U Q J r aj f J �L C Q Z; r L Gn O V r1 _ >, z , J F. N U :1 C N I�_n�13 TABLE 2 RUNOFF COEFFICIENTS (RATIONA DEVELOPED AREAS L METHOD) URBq N LLan" Usse Coeffi Res 1 dent i a l: So�0 Wit_(1 Single Family A C D Multi-Units .40 .4 Mobile homes .45 50 5 50 Rural •60 70 (lots tea •45 greater than 112 •50 •55 COmMerci a1 (2 acre) 80% Impervious •3o .35 .40 •65 Industrial(2) •70 •75 0 90/o Impervious .85 pervious .80 85 90 •95 NOTES: (1)Soil Gro up mans are (2)Where avai2abl actual Condit; e at the offices of Hess values of ons devi the Depart multiplying 80°/. or 9000• the valIonificantly fr men= °£ pubIzc (Yorks. tabulated impervi o or 900 by the rat- given for c�ife tabulated - be less than 0 50 ousness. However °f actual cient C pervious_ 'm pervious example: , in perviousness may be revjsed Consino case shall Actual imperviousness der com`lerciaI the ' al oneffhcient Ac per D soil- group, S0% Tabulated imperviousness _ 80 Revised C = 50 80 x 0'85 _ 0.53 IV-A-a APAENDIX Iv_y Rev, ��gl o� � D bV0 y� y V w qF do h q wC o a v w oQa,.a lki CC way C C o Zo ° _ a� �C -c c'�� - '� } ti.°may 4 �4_` C C• Q Q, O� .�� a ��� }�' L y L qj ~ OQy' .jyw N�qj 'c CZ � y CwCO to w Co / ono j wo qp Ivy ITIL �+wo n w a c "� , o• ,�� Z R Q C ,p vw, '�C �O �•CO �C $ � •O 804,r CQ y¢, 4b ' „ *� IV 000 p r O a CCI •�� �. ` `� ` _+ �••� �`� 1, , J�J ' Proq /Saypui) X; SUa, I .4ppi� •x'14 N o�+ G o•� v► p 4w 4J C N L L G C d L U b4 CL Cl ••- V N C ILI to d' .. L L YO t X CL 4' +.a �'a� a Emu Q 41 h CA a� G � O �m Z- aii ¢� CL a ex _OO L '^ _ _41 4j rJ 41 , Co C 4�d�Nj i 7 O C� quj V QJ•� V .0 ..G C(p I- L QJ _ t Cl G IQ CL Ml C 3 L-41 +I-0 CI G U 40 L * L d d a� N +- O v E CL_ t N i N G Cr ^a b G r " O € CI ,r N C N C E^ �o�s L m+ o I; a CC C ^N f" 0 C r-+ r-+O CL O p V QI It V h M . Q / 0" O ^ N Cn N 6-Hour Precipitation (1n v v Cf1eS� yam, � ___ -_ - �-_ 7- _� nj �. C ..y l -j—T_ -_.�_ __—� mil•-- if o CI CE '- .--.rte• - == - -•--� --/—'�- �- .� S- L d - - -- Say s It Z (-+n 0�► 1 out) �'�.�sua j APPENDIX XI IV-a-14